Say goodbye to "naked image" body scanners

By

Sharyl Attkisson, Carter Yang /

CBS News/ January 18, 2013, 2:33 PM

A TSA officer views images from the Advanced Imaging Technology unit at John F. Kennedy International Airport in this October 22, 2010 file photo. The backscatter X-ray full-body scanners can see through clothing, and screen passengers for metallic and non-metallic threats, including explosives. / Michael Nagle/Getty Images

WASHINGTON The last of the so-called "naked image" body scanners will soon be removed from U.S. airports.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is severing its $5 million software contract with OSI Systems Inc. for Rapiscan "Secure 1000" units, after the company couldn't produce less revealing images in time to meet a congressional deadline, reports CBS News aviation and transportation correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

Seventy-six of the machines have already been removed from U.S. airports; there are currently 174 left.

But body scanners are not being removed from airports entirely. Still in use are machines made by L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc., which produce less-detailed images that comply with congressional mandates to better protect passenger privacy.

Use of advanced imaging body scanners at airports was accelerated after the so-called "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas 2009. That was followed by an outcry from privacy advocates and members of Congress who argued the naked images produced by the machine were too invasive.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) likened a scan by the machines to a "physically invasive strip search."

In August, 2010 the TSA asked the makers of the body scanners to make the images less revealing. L-3 accomplished the goal in 2011, but Rapiscan recently said it would not be ready with its fix until 2014.

That's beyond a June deadline mandated by Congress.

Read More..

Algeria Terrorists Want to Trade US Hostages for Blind Sheikh













The al Qaeda-linked terrorists holding Americans and other Westerners hostage at a gas plant in Algeria have now demanded the release of two convicted terrorists held in U.S. prisons, including the "blind sheikh" who helped plan the first attack on New York's World Trade Center, in exchange for the freedom of two American hostages, according to an African news service.


The terror group calling itself the Masked Brigade, which raided the BP joint venture plant in In Amenas early Wednesday, reportedly contacted a Mauritanian news service with the offer. In addition to the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, they demanded the release of Aifia Siddiqui, a Pakistani scientist who shot at two U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan in 2008.


Asked about the unconfirmed report of a proposed swap, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said firmly, "The United States does not negotiate with terrorists." She repeated the statement again when questioned further. She also said she was not prepared to get into any details about the status of Americans in "an ongoing hostage situation."


At least three Americans were being held hostage by the militants when the Algerian military mounted a rescue operation at the facility Thursday that reportedly resulted in casualties.


Five other Americans who were at the facility when it was attacked by the terrorists are now safe and believed to have left the country, according to U.S. officials.






Mike Nelson/AFP/Getty Images













Algeria Hostage Situation: Military Operation Mounted Watch Video







Reports that dozens of hostages were killed during the Algerian military's attempt to retake the compound have not been confirmed, though Algeria's information minister has confirmed that there were casualties. It's known by U.S. and foreign officials that multiple British, Japanese and Norwegian hostages were killed.


According to an unconfirmed report by an African news outlet, the militants said seven hostages survived the attack, including two Americans, one Briton, three Belgians and a Japanese national. U.S. officials monitoring the case had no information indicating any Americans have been injured or killed, but said the situation is fluid and casualties cannot be ruled out.


On Friday, a U.S. military plane evacuated between 10 and 20 people in need of medical attention, none of them American, from In Amenas and took them to an American medical facility in Europe. A second U.S. plane is preparing to evacuate additional passengers in need of medical attention.


British Prime Minister David Cameron told parliament today that the terror attack "appears to have been a large, well coordinated and heavily armed assault and it is probable that it had been pre-planned."


"The terrorist group is believed to have been operating under Mokhtar Belmokhtar, a criminal terrorist and smuggler who has been operating in Mali and in the region for a number of years," said Cameron.


Cameron said Algerian security forces are still in action at the facility. On Thursday, he said that the situation was "very bad … A number of British citizens have been taken hostage. Already, we know of one who has died. ... I think we should be prepared for the possibility for further bad news, very difficult news in this extremely difficult situation."


The kidnappers had earlier released a statement saying there are "more than 40 crusaders" held "including 7 Americans."


U.S. officials had previously confirmed to ABC News that there were at least three Americans held hostage at the natural gas facility jointly owned by BP, the Algerian national oil company and a Norwegian firm at In Amenas, Algeria.


"I want to assure the American people that the United States will take all necessary and proper steps that are required to deal with this situation," said Panetta. "I don't think there's any question that [this was] a terrorist act and that the terrorists have affiliation with al Qaeda."


He said the precise motivation of the kidnappers was unknown.


"They are terrorists, and they will do terrorist acts," he said.






Read More..

Why U.S. needs tougher child labor rules




Cristina Traina says in his second term, Obama must address weaknesses in child farm labor standards




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Cristina Traina: Obama should strengthen child farm labor standards

  • She says Labor Dept. rules allow kids to work long hours for little pay on commercial farms

  • She says Obama administration scrapped Labor Dept. chief's proposal for tightening rules

  • She says Labor Dept. must fix lax standards for kid labor on farmers; OSHA must enforce them




Editor's note: Cristina L.H. Traina is a Public Voices Op Ed fellow and professor at Northwestern University, where she is a scholar of social ethics.


(CNN) -- President Barack Obama should use the breathing space provided by the fiscal-cliff compromise to address some of the issues that he shelved during his last term. One of the most urgent is child farm labor. Perhaps the least protected, underpaid work force in American labor, children are often the go-to workers for farms looking to cut costs.


It's easy to see why. The Department of Labor permits farms to pay employees under 20 as little as $4.25 per hour. (By comparison, the federal minimum wage is $7.25.) And unlike their counterparts in retail and service, child farm laborers can legally work unlimited hours at any hour of day or night.


The numbers are hard to estimate, but between direct hiring, hiring through labor contractors, and off-the-books work beside parents or for cash, perhaps 400,000 children, some as young as 6, weed and harvest for commercial farms. A Human Rights Watch 2010 study shows that children laboring for hire on farms routinely work more than 10 hours per day.


As if this were not bad enough, few labor safety regulations apply. Children 14 and older can work long hours at all but the most dangerous farm jobs without their parents' consent, if they do not miss school. Children 12 and older can too, as long as their parents agree. Unlike teen retail and service workers, agricultural laborers 16 and older are permitted to operate hazardous machinery and to work even during school hours.


In addition, Human Rights Watch reports that child farm laborers are exposed to dangerous pesticides; have inadequate access to water and bathrooms; fall ill from heat stroke; suffer sexual harassment; experience repetitive-motion injuries; rarely receive protective equipment like gloves and boots; and usually earn less than the minimum wage. Sometimes they earn nothing.


Little is being done to guarantee their safety. In 2011 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis proposed more stringent agricultural labor rules for children under 16, but Obama scrapped them just eight months later.


Adoption of the new rules would be no guarantee of enforcement, however. According to the 2010 Human Rights Watch report, the Department of Labor employees were spread so thin that, despite widespread reports of infractions they found only 36 child labor violations and two child hazardous order violations in agriculture nationwide.


This lack of oversight has dire, sometimes fatal, consequences. Last July, for instance, 15-year-old Curvin Kropf, an employee at a small family farm near Deer Grove, Illinois, died when he fell off the piece of heavy farm equipment he was operating, and it crushed him. According to the Bureau County Republican, he was the fifth child in fewer than two years to die at work on Sauk Valley farms.


If this year follows trends, Curvin will be only one of at least 100 children below the age of 18 killed on American farms, not to mention the 23,000 who will be injured badly enough to require hospital admission. According to Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistics, agriculture is one of the most dangerous industries. It is the most dangerous for children, accounting for about half of child worker deaths annually.


The United States has a long tradition of training children in the craft of farming on family farms. At least 500,000 children help to work their families' farms today.


Farm parents, their children, and the American Farm Bureau objected strenuously to the proposed new rules. Although children working on their parents' farms would specifically have been exempted from them, it was partly in response to worries about government interference in families and loss of opportunities for children to learn agricultural skills that the Obama administration shelved them.






Whatever you think of family farms, however, many child agricultural workers don't work for their parents or acquaintances. Despite exposure to all the hazards, these children never learn the craft of farming, nor do most of them have the legal right to the minimum wage. And until the economy stabilizes, the savings farms realize by hiring children makes it likely that even more of them will be subject to the dangers of farm work.


We have a responsibility for their safety. As one of the first acts of his new term, Obama should reopen the child agricultural labor proposal he shelved in spring of 2012. Surely, farm labor standards for children can be strengthened without killing off 4-H or Future Farmers of America.


Second, the Department of Labor must institute age, wage, hour and safety regulations that meet the standards set by retail and service industry rules. Children in agriculture should not be exposed to more risks, longer hours, and lower wages at younger ages than children in other jobs.


Finally, the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration must allocate the funds necessary for meaningful enforcement of child labor violations. Unenforced rules won't protect the nearly million other children who work on farms.


Agriculture is a great American tradition. Let's make sure it's not one our children have to die for.


Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.


Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.



The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Cristina Traina.






Read More..

Sony selling Madison Avenue HQ building for US$1.1b






TOKYO: Sony said Friday it was selling its US headquarters in Manhattan for $1.1 billion as part of an overhaul aimed at rescuing the Japanese consumer electronics giant's tattered balance sheet.

New York-based commercial property firm Chetrit Group would buy the Madison Avenue building in a deal expected to close in March, Sony said.

"Sony is undertaking a range of initiatives to strengthen its financial foundation and business competitiveness and for future growth," it said in a statement announcing the sale.

"At the same time, Sony is balancing cash inflows and outflows while working to improve its cash flow by carefully selecting investments, selling assets and strengthening control of working capital such as inventory. This sale is made as a part of such initiatives."

The deal would net Sony about $770 million after paying off building-related debt and transaction costs, it said.

Sony added it was "re-evaluating" its earnings outlook -- which forecasts a 20 billion yen ($223 million) annual net profit -- "to take into account this sale and other factors that might affect such forecast".

The firm has reported huge losses, spending the past four years in the red.

The sale comes as Japanese media reported this month that the embattled firm was also planning to sell one of its main buildings in Tokyo's Osaki district, which accommodates Sony's struggling television division.

-AFP/ac



Read More..

His 2nd term, America's 2nd chance?






STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • Reeling from the turmoil of the last four years, the country may be ready to regroup

  • President Obama, adopting a more assertive posture, will need to still persuade a divided country to get things done

  • The economy is improving, the nation's demographics are shifting and a new America is emerging




Washington (CNN) -- On the eve of the inauguration, President Barack Obama's second term may also be America's second chance.


The country, in the last four years, has been battered by an economic earthquake while trying to reconcile a debt load threatening to cripple the next generation.


It has been pulled apart by political extremism and the inability to compromise in Washington. The people have been divided -- by demographic shifts, cultural battles and clashes between the rich and the poor, the haves and the have-nots.


So, days before the president's second inaugural, the nation, too, is set to regroup. What it does differently this time around and the decisions the people make, experts say, will speak to the kind of America that emerges during the next four years.


"The enormous promise that everyone felt four years ago, it isn't completely gone but we have diminished our horizons," said Robert Schmuhl, an American studies professor at the University of Notre Dame. "We have learned that we are now living in an era of limits." Obama is perhaps more keenly aware of this than most.


Hope and hurdles


The 44th President was ushered into the Oval Office by a wave of seemingly limitless optimism and buoyed by the historic nature of his presidency as the first African American elected to the lead the free world.


But once in office, he found his efforts to right an economy hobbled by high unemployment -- 10% at its worse in 2009 -- and home foreclosure rates -- one in 29 homes were in foreclosure between 2007 and 2012 -- were limited by the magnitude of the problem and the political realities of a partisan Congress.


His plan to reform the nation's healthcare system further expanded political divides in Washington and helped lead to huge losses among his party's moderates in the 2010 election.








His re-election this fall — due in no small part to demographic shifts that included large numbers of minorities and women — was quickly followed by a protracted and deeply partisan showdown over trimming the nation's debt.


"I think Obama has learned some things," said Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate. "He's going to be unlike most second term presidents in that he will be far more assertive than he was in his first term. He will be stronger on pushback against some of the most extreme elements in the Republican House. He's willing to go to battle on the whole concept of getting the economy moving."


The public saw hints of that assertiveness on Monday during a surprise news conference, where he lashed out at Republicans in Congress for playing politics with the debt ceiling.


"We are not a deadbeat nation," Obama said during a nearly hour-long briefing from the East Room of the White House. It a newly combative tone, he called it "absurd" for the federal government not to pay "bills that have already been racked up" and said he will not negotiate "with a gun at the head of the American people."


From Obamacare to the economy to Sandy Hook


Over the next four years, the country will also get a chance to see whether the Affordable Care Act -- or "Obamacare" -- is a positive or negative step for the nation. In 2014, many of the most controversial provisions, including requiring individuals to either participate in a health insurance program or pay a penalty, take effect.


"We will see whether or not we have the strength within ourselves to figure out how we should deal with entitlement programs," Schmuhl said. "In a way, it's a period when the administration will be dealing with problems that are in process."


Obama's ability -- or failure -- to navigate all of this while coming off as a strong, levelheaded leader could help set the nation's tone for years to come.


"If the economy becomes more robust you will have no doubt he will point back and say see that's what I was doing," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and CNN contributor.


Reagan, Clinton faced similar issues


It's what happened when former President Ronald Reagan, who led the nation at a time when the country was reeling from a tough economy and just starting to get over the Vietnam War. In his second term "there was a sense America was moving in the right direction in terms of how it was doing around the globe," Zelizer said.


When former President Bill Clinton took office the economy wasn't doing well, but by the second term the economy was picking up, allowing him to deliver a balanced budget and ultimate surplus by the end of his presidency.


"There was clearly a shift in the mood," Zelizer said. "In both cases, the presidents were good at claiming credit for it."


Mood matters in the age of austerity


Everyday folks have learned to cut back and suck it up—some after finding themselves underwater on mortgages they could not afford to pay; others after losing jobs that their companies could no longer afford to keep.


So, Americans have been using their credit cards less and paying down debt more -- household debt as a percentage of disposable personal income is at its lowest rate in almost 30 years, according to the Federal Reserve and credit card balances had reached their lowest level in more than a decade.


And many expect the same discipline from their government.


"Americans will be realistic, just as those in government need to be realistic," Schmuhl said of citizens' likely approach to their own finances over the next four years.


But, as Obama enters his second term, both the housing and job markets have been on a slow and steady uptick. Housing sales were up 6% in 2012 -- the biggest gain since 2005, according to CoreLogic -- and the unemployment rate had dropped to 7.8% in December, although there are still 4.8 million Americans -- or 39.1% of the jobless -- classified as long-term unemployed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.


"Going into the second term, the fiscal situation will continue the agenda and the discussion," he said. "It will say a lot about us and where not only the government but the nation might be going. If it is difficult and, shall we say, fractured and there's a sense coming out of it that things are not working as they should my guess is that the public will begin saying: 'When will Washington work on our behalf?'"


Governing on a deadline


That sentiment was foreshadowed in the frustration over the down-to-the-wire, partisan political maneuvering as the last Congress sought to avert the fiscal cliff's steepest domestic spending cuts.


Obama appeared to prevail on that skirmish, delivering on a promise to raise tax rates on wealthy Americans -- although he shifted his definition of "wealthy" from those making $250,000 or more to those making $400,000 and up.


According to Pew Research Center and Gallup polls, Americans were none too impressed with how lawmakers handled the negotiations or the deal that was struck.


Some 41% of those polled disapproved of the deal, according to Pew, and 52% thought the deal would hurt people like them. In the Gallup poll, 67% - disapproved of congressional Republicans' handled the negotiations while 55% disapproved of how Democrats performed.


Still, partly due to deliberate redistricting to protect -- or create -- more partisan congressional districts, American voters continued to elect or re-elect safe representatives to do their bidding in Congress. For instance, most of the 435 members of the House of Representatives -- Republicans and Democrats -- faced little real opposition on Election Day in 2012.


Other battlegrounds: Sequester, gun control, immigration


But the next battle looms. Just weeks after Obama takes his oath of office, a new Congress will be tasked with addressing the automatic spending cuts, or sequester, that were kicked down the road in order to pass a smaller deal at the end of the year.


The new Congress will also consider raising the nation's debt ceiling, or the ability of the U.S. Treasury to borrow money to pay America's bills. Most agree that defaulting on the nation's obligations would be disastrous for America and the global economy, but some Republicans in Congress are starting to hint that they may be prepared to let that happen anyway if large spending cuts are not secured.


And after that, the fight over gun control, a high priority for the White House in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre, will pit the president against many members of the House and Senate from safe districts with high ratings and big-dollar donations from gun rights advocates.


The president and vice president unveiled a major plan on Wednesday that included 23 executive actions the president has ordered on his own, while urging the new Congress to take on the meaty issues of an assault weapons ban, limits on the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold, and other sweeping reforms the gun lobby and others say would gut the constitutional right to bear arms.


Immigration reform, another White House priority, will also stoke ideological differences and test the demographic shifts in Congress. For the first time, the House Democratic caucus is dominated by women and racial minorities, while the Republican caucus in that chamber is largely composed of white men. In the Senate, 20 women — the largest number in history — currently hold office.


But women and minorities are far outnumbered and outranked by white males on some of the most powerful congressional committees. And despite several high-ranking exceptions, Obama's Cabinet -- so far -- is shaping up to be largely male and white.


"The first thing we learned is that we're not post-race. That was a lot of willful imagining in '08 that his election would allow us to transcend these questions of race," said Mark Anthony Neal, a cultural and Black studies professor at Duke University. "The American electorate is looking different in terms of race and ethnicity and young folks being engaged. In 2016 our political realities will look more like our demographic realities."


And that's where the nation's shift over the next four years may be most visible.


But look first to the 2014 midterms and then the 2016 presidential election to see if the people signal continued frustration with the current regime -- in Congress and in the White House -- or demonstrate through the power of their vote that they feel the nation has finally turned the corner.







Read More..

American Airlines introduces new logo

NEW YORK American Airlines is getting a new look.

The airline showed off the first plane bearing a new logo and paint job at Dallas--Fort Worth International Airport on Thursday.


American Airlines releases new logo

American's new look


/

American Airlines/AP

The familiar red, white and blue stripes along the side of the fuselage are gone, replaced by a new logo and "American" in large letters on the silver body. Red and blue horizontal bars are emblazoned on the tail.

"We thought it was time to update the look - it's been 40 years," Thomas Horton, CEO of American's parent, AMR Corp., said in an interview.

The new livery was painted on a Boeing (BA) 777-300 that was flown into Fort Worth, Texas, overnight and was to be shown to the public later Thursday. The plane goes into service Jan. 31.

American expects about one-third of its fleet, or roughly 200 planes, will sport the new look by the end of the year with the rest to be repainted within five years. The makeover will extend to airport signs, self-help kiosks and American's website.

American declined to say how much the "rebranding" campaign will cost.

Horton said planning for the redesign began in the summer of 2011, when American announced it would buy hundreds of new planes from Boeing and Airbus, many of which will be made of composite material that can't easily be painted in American's traditional polished-aluminum look.

That means American was thinking of a makeover even before it filed for bankruptcy protection in November 2011. Horton said bankruptcy creditors were kept informed about the redesign. The desire to cut costs didn't derail the effort.

"We're very much coming to the end of the restructuring, and really all the cost-reduction initiatives have been bolted down," Horton said. "We really are at that moment now to turn the page and set the course for a new American."



American Airlines unveils a new company logo and exterior paint scheme on a Boeing 737-800 aircraft on January 17, 2013 in Dallas, Texas. The exterior changes are the first for the company since 1968 and were announced as the parent company of American Airlines, AMR, is considering a merger with US Airways.


/

Tom Pennington

Under pressure from creditors, AMR is studying whether to embrace a merger with US Airways (LCC) or remain on its own. A decision is expected soon, and Horton said the redesign doesn't tilt the company toward either outcome.

Horton said AMR did not tell US Airways in advance about the new livery - "That wouldn't have been appropriate; they're a competitor" - but he gave US Airways Group Inc. CEO Doug Parker a courtesy heads-up on Wednesday night.

US Airways praised the "compelling result" of the redesign, as spokesman Ed Stewart put it.

The pilots' union at American, which has long fought with AMR and wants company management replaced, was less enthusiastic.

"A new paint job is fine but it does not fix American's network deficiencies and toxic culture," said Dennis Tajer, a spokesman for the Allied Pilots Association. His and other unions at American support a merger that would put US Airways executives in charge of the combined airline.

Read More..

Football Star Manti Te'o Faces Tough Questions













Notre Dame's star linebackerManti Te'o faces a problem bigger than any running back he's had to bring down.


As the elaborate hoax about his dead "girlfriend" unravels, many questions remain to be answered, chief among them whether he was complicit in promoting the dramatic story of his girlfriend's death from leukemia. Te'o may soon be forced to tackle those questions himself.


"A lot of people are very suspicious when Te'o says he had no idea and he was just a sucker in this," Deadspin writer Timothy Burke said on "Good Morning America" today. "Why would somebody go to such great lengths to hoax him like that?"


Click here for 'Catfish' stars' advice on online dating.


Burke's Deadspin story broke the scandal, forcing Te'o and Notre Dame to admit the girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, never existed. Notre Dame claims that Te'o is the victim of a "cruel hoax."


"[Notre Dame is] sticking to his story and they're going to, I think, fight and make every sort of attempt they can to prove he had no idea this was going on and that he was the unfortunate victim of a year-long prank," Burke said.


But it won't be easy.


"I think that there are some questions about when he became aware of it, simply because Notre Dame and Te'o's statement have indicated that he found out about it in late December, but he chose not to correct or identify when he was asked before the BCS Championship game about his girlfriend," he said. The championship game was played on Jan. 7.






Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images











Tale of Notre Dame Football Star's Girlfriend and Her Death an Alleged Hoax Watch Video









Notre Dame's Athletic Director Discusses Manti Te'o Girlfriend Hoax Watch Video









MTV's 'Catfish' Series Pulls Back Curtain on Online Profiles Watch Video





Burke said he is particularly eager for answers about the story Te'o told of meeting his girlfriend in 2009 and his father Brian Te'o's statements about how the purported girlfriend used to visit Manti in Hawaii.


What is clear is that Te'o tweeted Kekua twice after she was reported to have died on Sept. 11 or 12, 2012.


On Sept. 12, the day after his grandmother's death, Te'o tweeted to his purportedly deceased girlfriend, "You will always be with me wherever I go! Tell dad, BJ, papa Ima, papa Santiago, and grandma that I said hello! I love you! #574L."


Nearly two months later, on Nov. 6, he tweeted her again saying, "I miss you!"


Those tweets may be an indication of his sincerity or, to skeptics, elaborately planted fake evidence of his heartbreak.


The university's athletic director Jack Swarbrick said at a Wednesday night news conference that the school was not speaking for Te'o.


"At the end of the day, this is Manti's story to tell and we believe he should have the right to tell it, which he is going to do," Swarbrick said.


Swarbrick said that Te'o and his family came to the university last month with concerns that Te'o had been the victim of a hoax.


"The university immediately initiated an investigation to assist Manti and his family in discovering the motive for and nature of this hoax," he said. "While the proper authorities will continue to investigate this troubling matter, this appears to be, at a minimum, a sad and very cruel deception to entertain its perpetrators."


The school's investigators monitored online chatter by the alleged perpetrators, Swarbrick said, adding that he was shocked by the "casual cruelty" it revealed.


"They enjoyed the joke," Swarbrick said, comparing the ruse to the popular film "Catfish," in which filmmakers revealed a person at the other end of an online relationship was not who she said she was.


"While we still don't know all of the dimensions of this ... there are certain things that I feel confident we do know," Swarbrick said. "The first is that this was a very elaborate, very sophisticated hoax, perpetrated for reasons we don't understand."


Click here for more scandalous public confessions.


Swarbrick also said that he believed Te'o's representatives were planning to disclose the truth next week until Wednesday's story broke.


Te'o, who led the Fighting Irish to the BCS championship game this year and finished second for the Heisman Trophy, has only issued a written statement so far.






Read More..

Scientology ad crossed the line




The Church of Scientology is also at fault for thinking the advertorial would survive The Atlantic readers' scrutiny, Ian Schafer says.




STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • The Atlantic published and pulled a sponsored Scientology "story"

  • Ian Schafer: On several levels, the ad was a mistake

  • He says the content was heavy-handed and comments were being moderated

  • Schafer: Experimenting to raise revenue makes sense, but standards should be clear




Editor's note: Ian Schafer is the founder and CEO of a digital advertising agency, Deep Focus, and the alter ego of @invisibleobama. You can read his rants on his blog at ianschafer.com.


(CNN) -- "The Atlantic is America's leading destination for brave thinking and bold ideas that matter. The Atlantic engages its print, online, and live audiences with breakthrough insights into the worlds of politics, business, the arts, and culture. With exceptional talent deployed against the world's most important and intriguing topics, The Atlantic is the source of opinion, commentary, and analysis for America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." -- The Atlantic 2013 media kit for advertisers


On Monday, The Atlantic published -- and then pulled -- a story titled "David Miscavige Leads Scientology to Milestone Year." This "story" went on to feature the growth of Scientology in 2012.



Ian Schafer

Ian Schafer



Any regular reader of The Atlantic's content would immediately do a double-take upon seeing that kind of headline, much less the heavy-handed text below it, shamelessly plugging how well Scientology's "ecclesiastical leader" Miscavige has done in "leading a renaissance for the religion."


This "story" is one of several "advertorials" (a portmanteau of "advertising" and "editorials") that The Atlantic has published online, clearly designated as "Sponsor Content." In other words, "stories" like these aren't real stories. They are ads with a lot of words, which advertisers have paid publications to run on their behalf for decades. You may have seen them in magazines and newspapers as "special advertising sections."


The hope is that because you are already reading the publication, hey, maybe you'll read what the advertiser has to say, too -- instead of the "traditional" ad that they may have otherwise placed on the page that you probably won't remember, or worse, will ignore.



There's nothing wrong with this tactic, ethically, when clearly labeled as "sponsored" or "advertising." But many took umbrage with The Atlantic in this particular case; so many, that The Atlantic responded by pulling the story from its site -- which was the right thing to do -- and by apologizing.


At face value, The Atlantic did the right thing for its business model, which depends upon advertising sales. It sold what they call a "native" ad to a paying advertiser, clearly labeled it as such, without the intention of misleading readers into thinking this was a piece of journalism.


But it still failed on several levels.


The Atlantic defines its readers as "America's most influential individuals who wish to be challenged, informed, and entertained." By that very definition, it is selling "advertorials" to people who are the least likely to take them seriously, especially when heavy-handed. There is a fine line between advertorial and outright advertising copywriting, and this piece crossed it. The Church of Scientology is just as much at fault for thinking this piece would survive The Atlantic readers' intellectual scrutiny. But this isn't even the real issue.


Bad advertising is all around us. And readers' intellectual scrutiny would surely have let the advertorial piece slide without complaints (though snark would be inevitable), as they have in the past, or yes, even possibly ignored it. But here's where The Atlantic crossed another line -- it seemed clear it was moderating the comments beneath the advertorial.


As The Washington Post reported, The Atlantic marketing team was carefully pruning the comments, ensuring that they were predominantly positive, even though many readers were leaving negative comments. So while The Atlantic was publishing clearly labeled advertiser-written content, it was also un-publishing content created by its readers -- the very folks it exists to serve.


It's understandable that The Atlantic would inevitably touch a third rail with any "new" ad format. But what it calls "native advertising" is actually "advertorial." It's not new at all. Touching the third rail in this case is unacceptable.


So what should The Atlantic have done in this situation before it became a situation? For starters, it should have worked more closely with the Church of Scientology to help create a piece of content that wasn't so clearly written as an ad. If the Church of Scientology was not willing to compromise its advertising to be better content, then The Atlantic should not have accepted the advertising. But this is a quality-control issue.


The real failure here was that comments should never have been enabled beneath this sponsored content unless the advertiser was prepared to let them be there, regardless of sentiment.


It's not like Scientology has avoided controversy in the past. The sheer, obvious reason for this advertorial in the first place was to dispel beliefs that Scientology wasn't a recognized religion (hence "ecclesiastical").


Whether The Atlantic felt it was acting in its advertiser's best interest, or the advertiser specifically asked for this to happen, letting it happen at all was a huge mistake, and a betrayal of an implicit contract that should exist between a publication of The Atlantic's stature and its readership.


No matter how laughably "sales-y" a piece of sponsored content might be, the censoring of readership should be the true "third rail," never to be touched.


Going forward, The Atlantic (and any other publication that chooses to run sponsored content) should adopt and clearly communicate an explicit ethics statement regarding advertorials and their corresponding comments. This statement should guide the decisions it makes when working with advertisers, and serve as a filter for the sponsored content it chooses to publish, and what it recommends advertisers submit. It should also prevent readers from being silenced if given a platform at all.


As an advertising professional, I sincerely hope this doesn't spook The Atlantic or any other publication from experimenting with ways to make money. But as a reader, I hope it leads to better ads that reward me for paying attention, rather than muzzle my voice should I choose to interact with the content.


After all, what more could a publication or advertiser ask for than for content to be so interesting that someone actually would want to comment on (or better, share) it?


(Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said native advertising accounts for 59% of the Atlantic's ad revenue. Digital advertising, of which native advertising is a part, accounts for 59% of The Atlantic's overall revenue, according to the company.)


Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.


Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.


The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ian Schafer.






Read More..

Football: Hodgson eyes long-awaited England glory






LONDON: As the Football Association begins its 150th anniversary year, England manager Roy Hodgson has challenged his players to provide the ultimate celebration by at least putting themselves in contention to end almost half a century without a trophy.

Hodgson is the latest in a string of managers charged with ending England's wait for a first major honour since their lone World Cup final triumph, against the then West Germany at London's Wembley Stadium in 1966.

But after helping the FA launch its landmark birthday on the London site of its first meeting, the current incumbent in the so-called 'impossible job' refused to accept it may take another 50 years to replicate.

"There's always hope," Hodgson insisted. "Hope springs eternal. But what you have to do to win tournaments is make sure you're regularly among the ones who are up there with a possibility of winning.

"You could compare it to someone who is an amateur darts player. The more darts he throws in and around the centre, one day he will get it in the bullseye.

"If he's spreading them around the board your chances will be less than if he's getting them in the 25 circle."

Hodgson took England to the quarter-finals at Euro 2012, only losing on penalties to Italy -- even though his team's performances were often described as limited by many critics who yearn for England to rely more on technique and finesse than just their famous bulldog spirit.

The FA shares the same ambition; which is why it has built a national academy in central England at St George's Park -- a school for coaches where all 24 national teams will also be based.

And although Hodgson knows any rewards from that venture are a long way down the line, he hasn't ruled out a degree of short-term success if England qualify for the 2014 World Cup finals in Brazil.

"The first thing we have to do of course is qualify for the tournament," he said. "And then when we qualify it will be important that we give a very good account of ourselves at the World Cup in Brazil. And who knows, once you are there you have a chance of winning it.

"I think we have some very good young players coming into the game playing regularly now and showing that they do have the ability to shoulder the burden."

Hodgson was joined at The FA's anniversary launch by several former England managers including Sven-Goran Eriksson, Terry Venables and Fabio Capello, who left the role in controversial circumstances following a row over a decision to strip John Terry of the England captaincy.

But the Italian was all smiles as he said: "We are all friends now. It is very good to come back and see the people I used to work with. I have no problems with anyone.

"You know I can't talk about what happened with England but I am enjoying my life with Russia and my hope is that we play England in Brazil at the World Cup. That would be very good I think."

FA chairman David Bernstein welcomed Capello's participation by insisting: "Fabio is a man of great dignity and I respect him enormously.

"To see him today (Wednesday) and the warmth he showed, and there was a great deal of warmth when we met each other was really fabulous. It's the way it should be. There were hugs all round."

Meanwhile it emerged the FA, which has already arranged anniversary England friendlies against Brazil, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, was also looking to fit in matches against Argentina and Germany at Wembley in October and November.

-AFP/ac



Read More..

U.S. regulators ground Dreamliners over fire risk









By Aaron Cooper, CNN


updated 7:24 PM EST, Wed January 16, 2013









STORY HIGHLIGHTS


  • NEW: A veteran pilot calls the grounding a prudent move

  • FAA grounds Dreamliners for battery fix

  • The move follows an emergency landing in Japan and another incident in Boston

  • United is the only U.S. carrier to fly the 787 and says it will comply




Washington (CNN) -- U.S. regulators Wednesday ordered airlines to stop flying their Boeing 787s until they can show they've fixed a fire risk linked to battery failures aboard the closely watched Dreamliners.


The move by the Federal Aviation Administration follows an emergency landing in Japan that prompted that country's two major airlines to ground their fleets of 787s, and a similar problem aboard a Dreamliner on the ground in Boston nine days earlier.


"The battery failures resulted in release of flammable electrolytes, heat damage, and smoke on two Model 787 airplanes," the FAA announced Wednesday evening. "The root cause of these failures is currently under investigation. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in damage to critical systems and structures, and the potential for fire in the electrical compartment."




This battery was involved in a fire aboard a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 January 7 in Boston.



The only U.S. carrier to operated the eagerly awaited, long-delayed jetliner is United Airlines, which said earlier Wednesday that it had inspected its fleet of six 787s and would continue flying them. United spokeswoman Christen David said Wednesday evening that the airline would comply with the order "and will work closely with the FAA and Boeing on the technical review."


The FAA noted that its directive also signals international aviation authorities to take "parallel action" regarding their own airlines.










Since July, the growing list of reported troubles aboard the Dreamliner include a fuel leak, an oil leak, two cracked engines, a damaged cockpit window and a battery problem. The FAA announced a safety review of the aircraft last week.


In the most serious incident so far, All Nippon Airlines 787 with 129 people aboard made an emergency landing after a battery alarm Wednesday morning. Those on board reported a burning smell in the cabin, and an alarm indicated smoke in a forward electrical compartment.


Hours later, ANA and Japan Airlines announced hours later that they were grounding their Dreamliners pending an investigation. A maintenance worker discovered an electrical fire aboard an empty Japan Airlines 787 slated for departure from Logan International Airport in Boston on January 7.


There was no immediate response from Boeing, which saw its stock take a beating after the incident in Japan. But Boeing chief engineer Mike Sinnett expressed confidence in the battery system after last week's incident in Boston, "I am 100% convinced the airplane is safe to fly. I fly on it all the time."


Asked last week whether he would consider grounding the jets, FAA Administrator Michael Huerta said there was "nothing in the data" that suggested the Dreamliner was unsafe.


Longtime commercial pilot and industry analyst Patrick Smith said the battery issue did not appear to be a major problem, but called the FAA order "a positive and pro-active step."


"I don't think that it was dangerous for the plane to be flying, but it probably wasn't the best thing to be flying it on the heels of this latest emergency landing in Japan," Smith said.


"All airplanes have their teething problems, and this was trending in a bad direction," he added. "Now the authorities have said, 'Stop,' and that's a good thing."


CNN's Mike M. Ahlers and Thom Patterson contributed to this report.








Read More..